*/
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The profession has already tackled many uncertainties and risks
How seriously should barristers’ chambers take the threat of cyberattack and how can they best protect themselves? Doug Hargrove offers some expert advice
With a mandate to advance best practice in crypto fraud cases and investigations, and improve recovery outcomes for victims, CFAAR (the Crypto Fraud and Asset Recovery network) founders Nick Price and Aidan Larkin discuss plans for the new network
Q&A with Carmel King of Grant Thornton UK LLP’s Insolvency and Asset Recovery practice
AlphaBiolabs is extending its support to vulnerable families once again this Christmas
An update by Rachel Cooper of Coram Chambers
A barrister-authors cultural life and times includes an obsession with all things medieval and what it means to be British
As we face 2022, the profession feels restless, the job feels relentless but we are in good hands: our new yet seasoned leader talks to Joanna Hardy-Susskind about his concerns and ambitions for the Bar, and how we protect this truly precious, national asset
Raggi Kotak and Laurie-Anne Power on the positive actions chambers can take to support a more racially inclusive environment
Can we make life in the law healthier and happier? asks Elizabeth Rimmer
Lets not look a gift horse in the mouth, writes Katie Gollop QC
